Agamemnon wrote:

wv wrote:

Is he as good as Sammy Watkins?

w
v

[color color=blue]I think he is a bit better, but it is hard to tell.[/color]

I think Watkins is a little more talented. The knock on Cook is that he isn’t a nifty runner nor is he good at catching passes in traffic, battling for balls, etc. Supposedly he became expendable in New England because he’s not good at catching passes underneath the LBs, which is where Brady likes to throw the most.

But he is very fast and can get open over the top which is what MCVay is looking for. And, unlike Watkins, he’s not injury prone. Also unlike Watkins, he’s been one of the most productive WRs since he’s been in the league. Mannion played with him in college and says he’s really bright.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by nittany ram.

Billy_T wrote:

wv wrote:

Ok, one of youz smart people — dum this down for me. What does it say?

“….A decolonial approach would necessitate moving past the individualistic liberal ontology underpinning much of feminism today, including some strands of intersectionality. This entails problematizing the assumption that the subject is always erased from the analysis, thus producing a myth about universal and objective knowledge. Instead, “critical border thinking” can be employed, which is a form of subaltern epistemology that does not hide the epistemic positionality of the subject speaking.[5] This allows for decolonial interpretative communities to be produced that challenge Western notions of universality, neutrality and linear evolution. By critically deconstructing Western concepts and structures that have been normalized, the first step towards dismantling them has been taken.[6]…”

Just going by that quote — I didn’t click on the link yet — I’d say the writer is a really bad writer, and thinks they can make up for their lack of language skills with waves of jargon. Judith Butler used to win awards for this kind of thing. Awards that you’d generally want to avoid.

I’m feeling like quite the curmudgeon today, for some reason!!

;>)

Agreed. Way too much jargon. It looks like the author got a shiny new vocabulary and wants to show it off.

I’m surprised the site would allow it to be published it that form. Even the reviewers of scholarly journals often force rewrites of submissions with too much jargon.

pic.twitter.com/JB9HKtNWZi

— Kathy Lette (@KathyLette) July 16, 2018

Report: FOX in talks to hire Jeff Fisher as a commentator https://t.co/4aI5g9dEfU

— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) July 11, 2018

I can’t read the article but they already are centrist. They’ve been that way for quite awhile. Their republican-lite centrist policies helped create Trump.

The dem party in RI may actually support an alt right candidate over the progressive incumbent. Why? Because the incumbent, in their eyes, leans too far to the left.

The dems need progressive policies that speak to the working class. Their abandonment of the working class, their complicity in the destruction of trade unions, their embracement of Wall Street and corporate interests (ie, their adoption of centrist ideals) has been the dem party’s modus operandi for too long, and is why they don’t represent a real alternative to the GOP to many voters. They are just the GOP’s wussy little brother.

The uniform issue is a self inflicted injury. They knew the rules governing uniform changes going in, and they still decided to go to the white horned helmets.

I’m really glad they made the change. I think the only reason they did it was to try to instill interest in a team that went 4-12 in their first season. They know Rams fans have a particularly close relationship with the uniform and any talk of change will generate interest. But anyway, it was great seeing the blue and white helmets again – the colors they wore when I first became a fan. Unfortunately, the change is temporary, as they are almost assuredly going with some blue and yellow combination with the new uniforms, as that seems to be what most fans prefer.

Yeah, the blue and gold jerseys combined with the blue and white helmet is not a good look, but they knew they were going to be stuck with it a couple times a year. No point in complaining about it now. It’s a trade off I’m happy with if it means seeing the blue and white helmets again – if only for a little while longer.

My deviled eggs have been described as “transcendent”.

Mostly by me.

The only reason you would have to fear gluten is if you have celiac disease.

Gluten is most likely harmless for everyone else.

Link: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/non-celiac-gluten-sensitivity/

About a third of Americans report that they are trying to reduce or avoid gluten in their diet. If Jimmy Kimmel’s funny stunt is any indication, most probably don’t know what gluten even is. The gluten-free diet has officially become a fad, and “gluten” has been tagged as something vaguely bad that should be avoided.

About 1% of people have a disease called Celiac, which is an autoimmune reaction to gluten. This is a serious disease that can make people very ill if they consume even the smallest amount of gluten. A diagnosis of Celiac can be confirmed with an antibody test (anti-gliadin antibodies), or, if necessary, a stomach biopsy.

Gluten is a composite protein composed of two parts, gliadin and glutenin. It is found in wheat, rye, barley, spelt, and related grains. It is a springy protein that gives bread its elasticity. Celiac disease is an immune reaction to the gliadin part of the protein.

Celiac is fairly well understood and is non-controversial. What is controversial is a disorder known as non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) – believed to be an intolerance to gluten that causes gastrointestinal symptoms. NCGS is controversial, and in fact may not truly exist at all.

NCGS should be considered a hypothesis, not a confirmed entity, but this has not stopped self-diagnosis and treatment from becoming popular.

It is sometimes tricky to confirm whether or not a new possible diagnosis truly exists, or if it is just a misdiagnosis of other diseases and disorders. Diseases are usually first recognized by their clinical syndrome, and then later investigation uncovers the cause or pathophysiology of the disease. Often at this stage, when we discover what is happening biologically, diseases are reclassified, and diagnoses are sometimes combined, and other times split apart.

There are some diagnoses, however, that live on the fringe, never gaining scientific support. Throughout history, it seems, there have always been faddish diagnoses used as popular labels for common symptoms. At the turn of the 19th century “neurasthenia” was a common label for vague or common symptoms. In the mid 20th century syphilis (although a real disease) was often used as a convenient diagnosis for any unexplained symptoms.

More recently we have chronic Lyme, candida hypersensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivity, electromagnetic sensitivity, and a host of other vague syndromes.

Electromagnetic sensitivity is similar to NCGS in that both are believed to be a sensitivity with symptoms resulting from a specific exposure. In both cases, therefore, we can address the core question (does the sensitivity exist) by studying blinded exposures. In the case of electromagnetic sensitivity, when properly blinded those who believe they have this condition cannot detect exposure.

What about NCGS? It has not been established that NCGS exists, or that people who believe they have this condition actually are responding physiologically to gluten. There are two possibilities that need to be carefully considered. The first is that perceived gluten sensitivity is an observational artifact, a type of nocebo effect. GI symptoms are notoriously sensitive to mood and expectation. There are also generic biases such as confirmation bias that can lead to the perception of false associations.

It is still not clear, in other words, that there is an actual association between consuming gluten and GI symptoms. Individuals may firmly believe that they have such an association, but we know from countless historical examples and experiments that such firm beliefs can form in the absence of a true association.

The second possibility that needs to be seriously considered is that in some people who are self-diagnosed with NCGS, they are reacting to something else that is common in gluten-containing foods. If this is the case, then gluten is an innocent bystander. This would be very important to discover, for obvious practical reasons.

A recent study suggests that this might be the case. Biesiekierski et. al. did a well controlled series of studies in which they challenged subjects with possible NCGS with carefully controlled diets with various amounts of gluten. They found no association between gluten consumption and reported symptoms, arguing very strongly against NCGS as a real entity.

Their study did, however, suggest another possible culprit – FODMAPs (fermentable, oligo-, di-, monosaccharides, and polyols). These are also common in breads and other foods containing gluten. In the study subjects, GI symptoms improved when FODMAPs and gluten were removed, but then reintroducing gluten had no association with return of symptoms. The authors conclude:

In a placebo-controlled, cross-over rechallenge study, we found no evidence of specific or dose-dependent effects of gluten in patients with NCGS placed diets low in FODMAPs.

They were not, however, testing whether or not FODMAPs were a cause of GI symptoms, and so cannot conclude if this is the true cause. A follow up study would need to be done to verify that (perhaps we’ll see a FODMAP-free fad before this science can be done). If true it would explain why some people do have reduction in GI symptoms when they avoid gluten, because they are also avoiding FODMAPs.

Conclusion

The best evidence we currently have suggests that NCGS is probably not a real entity. Blinded challenges do not show any correlation, and there is currently no evidence for a specific mechanism. Those who are self-diagnosed with NCGS probably fall into one of three categories:

1- Borderline true Celiac disease (a small minority that can be sorted out with diagnostic tests)

2- GI symptoms due to non-dietary reasons with a false association with gluten due to confirmation bias and nocebo effects

3 – GI symptoms due to some other food exposure. FODMAPs are one possibility, but more research needs to be done.

The real risk of the gluten-free fad is that it distracts from what is really going on. Popular diagnoses (whether real or not) do tend to attract self-diagnosis, and become an impediment to a more proper diagnosis. There is a tendency to prematurely settle on the popular diagnosis, and then fail to consider all possibilities.

In the case of NCGS, there may be something else in food to which some people are sensitive. Or, diet may not be the answer at all.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by nittany ram.

wv wrote:

“He’s the head of a country, and I mean he’s the strong head,” Trump said. “He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”

Yeah, he said it. He doesn’t even try to hide his desire to be the Supreme Ruler of America.

His minions are all for it. 52% of Republicans polled said they would gladly support postponing the 2020 election if Glorious Leader asked them to.

I have to say how much I appreciate and admire zooey’s posts on Facebook concerning these issues.

To use the parlance of today’s generation, he is “totes killing it”.

Billy_T wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

wv wrote:

Well but to me thats like saying Orcs should be more like elves. Ya know.

w
v

Well, if you consulted your Tolkien, you’d see that orcs were decended from elves; their bodies and minds twisted by the evil Melkor…

The point being, the orcs were forced to be who and what they are. They had no choice.

Unlike the orcs, the dems have a choice – they just choose to be greedy.

___

All of that reminds me of this quote:

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”

[Kung Fu Monkey — Ephemera, blog post, March 19, 2009]”

― John Rogers

That’s a good quote, Billy.

The Top 100 Players of 2018 revealed players ranked No. 20-11 last night. Here they are pic.twitter.com/YMywOkyxRW

— NFL Media (@NFLMedia) June 19, 2018

That doesn’t look right.

I’m pretty sure the Rams have more than 10 players.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/08/617992814/bernie-sanders-is-losing-primary-battles-but-winning-a-war?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Bernie Sanders Is Losing Primary Battles, But Winning A War
3:52
DOWNLOAD
June 8, 20185:00 AM ET
Headshot of Scott Detrow, 2018
SCOTT DETROW

Twitter

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., greets the crowd as he arrives for a campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla., in 2016, when he built a large political movement during his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Many in the party have adopted parts of his agenda, even though candidates he backs mostly have lost in 2018.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Since most of the congressional candidates that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed this year are losing contested primaries, then Sanders’ political clout must be fading, right?

“That’s a stupid argument,” Sanders told NPR this week.

“You know, he has a much broader look at politics than just elections,” Sanders’ longtime strategist Jeff Weaver said.

That is evident. The 2016 candidate repeatedly questioned the political value of his endorsements, and even expressed some mild indifference to the race-by-race results of the primaries he’s waded into.

Democrats Breathe Sigh Of Relief After Tuesday’s Primaries
ANALYSIS
Democrats Breathe Sigh Of Relief After Tuesday’s Primaries
Sanders’ broader goal is to get more first-time voters and first-time candidates involved in the political process, and to keep pushing progressive policies like a Medicare-for-all health care plan into the Democratic mainstream.

If that takes more than one election cycle, so be it.

“I hope they win,” Sanders said. “Maybe they don’t. But if you get 45 percent of the vote now, next time you may well win.”

In the U.S. House primaries that have happened so far, Sanders has endorsed six candidates in contested races. Only two of his chosen House candidates have won contested primaries, and one was an incumbent: Rep. Nanette Barragán of California.

Even if many of his hand-picked candidates are coming up short, more of the Democrats who are winning are lining up closer to Sanders anyway. A Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care plan continues to gain support among Democratic candidates, and the $15 minimum wage Sanders made a key part of his presidential campaign has been adopted as a cause by party leaders across the country.

Article continues after sponsorship

Likely 2020 Democratic Candidates Want To Guarantee A Job To Every American
POLITICS
Likely 2020 Democratic Candidates Want To Guarantee A Job To Every American
But given his broad success at reshaping the party, the question lingers as to why so many of the candidates bearing Sanders’ personal seal of approval are losing.

This week, another Sanders-endorsed House candidate lost a Democratic primary by a wide margin. Pete D’Alessandro ran Sanders’ Iowa campaign in 2016, which resulted in a virtual tie with Hillary Clinton. This year, the Vermont senator campaigned alongside him, cut a TV commercial for him and helped him raise money. But D’Alessandro finished in third.

“I could be 100 percent in terms of my endorsements,” Sanders told NPR. “All you’ve got to do is endorse establishment candidates who have a whole lot of money, who are 40 points ahead in the poll. You know what, you’ll come and say, ‘Bernie, you were 100 percent supportive of these candidates, they all won.'”

“The candidates that we support, by and large with few exceptions, are all candidates who are taking on the establishment, and are often outspent,” he added.

Sanders and Weaver argue that a race-by-race accounting isn’t the best way to track what the 2016 Democratic presidential runner-up is doing this year.

“The issue here is not that I think a Bernie Sanders, or frankly the endorsement of anybody else, is some magical potion to get people elected,” Sanders said. “Frankly, between you and me, I’m not sure how much endorsements – how significant they are. Sometimes they help, sometimes not much.”

Two of the 17 candidates Sanders has backed this year say that, in their minds, there’s no question the endorsement helped.

“It did a lot of good for our campaign,” said Greg Edwards, who ran in a crowded Pennsylvania House primary last month. “It increased my name ID, helped me get volunteers, helped with fundraising, certainly. And we got a lot of media attention out of it. I think we got four or five press hits.”

Still, Edwards also ended up third in his race.

But Edwards centered his campaign around policies many voters now associate with Sanders. “Universal health care, Medicare-for-all, around universal preschool, around debt-free college. Around increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15,” he said.

“Many of these issues were considered fringe issues, and now they are mainstream issues that we take for granted that there, of course, are legions of Democratic candidates running on those platforms,” said Jeff Weaver. “Three or four years ago you would not have seen candidates running on that platform I would have considered to be outside the mainstream.”

Bernie Sanders Knows His Medicare-For-All Bill Won’t Pass. That’s Not The Point
POLITICS
Bernie Sanders Knows His Medicare-For-All Bill Won’t Pass. That’s Not The Point
When Sanders introduced his latest single-payer health care bill last year, it was quickly endorsed by several of the Senate Democrats mentioned as possible 2020 presidential candidates.

Braddock, Pa., Mayor John Fetterman was running on many of those issues two years ago, when he entered Pennsylvania’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary against two better-funded candidates.

Fetterman had hoped for a Sanders endorsement that year, but didn’t get it. Fetterman finished third in that 2016 race.

The call finally came two years later, when Fetterman was running for lieutenant governor in a crowded field that included an incumbent. “I don’t care who you are, but you know when somebody says, ‘Please hold for Senator Sanders,’ and then you hear his voice on the line say, ‘Hi John’, you’re like, ‘Oh my gosh!'”

“What I ran on in 2016, that didn’t change in 2018,” said Fetterman, who won last month’s primary. But now, many other Democratic candidates share those views, too.

“A Democrat can’t be elected nationally if he or she doesn’t embrace his idea of Medicare-for-all, I fundamentally believe that,” said Fetterman. “And at the heart of that, that’s what Sen. Sanders has always championed.”

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

<
That’s the stuff I don’t buy. The science on this is pretty clear I think.

…

================

Well i used to think it was clear, but now i have doubts. There are plenty of sciency people that dont buy the official version. And i do not have the background to know. So…I have to ‘trust’…who? I dunno.

So thats where I’m at.

And Mack has gone awol.

w
v

What we do have is a world full of thousands of independent engineers, metallurgists, chemists, chemical engineers, and so on (how many other fields?) not just in the USA but all over the world, and they all have all the data they need to reach conclusions.

Is there a universal outcry from discipline-relevant scientists in american universities and around the world that something is fishy about the accepted story of what happened to the buildings? No.

Instead what you constantly find is things like this:

Did a European Scientific Journal Conclude 9/11 Was a Controlled Demolition?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/

Viral news stories misattributed an article written by “9/11 Truth” advocates as one published in the European Scientific Journal; it was actually published in Europhysics News, which is not peer-reviewed.

A conspiracy of this magnitude would have to involve 1000s of people. It would nearly be impossible to keep it a secret for a few weeks, let alone 17 years.